Charlesworth, R (on the application of) v Crossrail Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 915 (Admin) (25 April 2018)

Charlesworth, R (on the application of) v Crossrail Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 915 (Admin) (25 April 2018)

Crossrail Limited lawfully applied the C10 Policy to the disposal of the land. B55 was correctly treated as a holder of a Qualifying Interest because its freehold was acquired under threat of compulsory purchase. The Claimant's loss of preferential opportunity was a consequence of competing bids, as provided by the Policy. There was no unlawful deprivation or bad faith.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 915 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Charlesworth; Defendant: Crossrail Limited; Interested Party: Berkeley Fifty-Five Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Land Disposal Policy, Crichel Down Rules, Qualifying Interest, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Property Law Compulsory Purchase Compulsory Acquisition Land Disposal Policy Crichel Down Rules Qualifying Interest Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Charlesworth

Claimant

Crossrail Limited

Defendant

Berkeley Fifty-Five Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crossrail Limited lawfully applied the C10 Policy to the disposal of land formerly leased by the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether Berkeley Fifty-Five Limited was correctly treated as holder of a Qualifying Interest under the C10 Policy
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was unlawfully deprived of preferential opportunity to acquire the land

Ratio Decidendi

Crossrail Limited lawfully applied the C10 Policy to the disposal of the land. B55 was correctly treated as a holder of a Qualifying Interest because its freehold was acquired under threat of compulsory purchase. The Claimant's loss of preferential opportunity was a consequence of competing bids, as provided by the Policy. There was no unlawful deprivation or bad faith.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review dismissed